The global environmental group Greenpeace blasted the Obama administration's decision to go along with a Danish proposal not to push for a binding global climate agreement at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen next month. , calling it a sop to President Barack Obama's political vulnerability.

Green groups split on Danish idea

U.S. environmental groups are split over how to respond to the Obama administration’s decision to go along with a Danish proposal not to push for a binding global climate agreement at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen next month.

The global environmental group Greenpeace blasted the move, calling it a sop to President Barack Obama’s political vulnerability. “Danish Prime Minister [Lars Lokke] Rasmussen has become complicit in a U.S. so-called deal which would put Obama’s political difficulties ahead of the survival of the world’s most vulnerable countries,” said Kaisa Kosonen, climate policy adviser for Greenpeace International.

Story Continued Below

“When Obama started downplaying the Copenhagen outcomes, did he check with the world’s most vulnerable countries as to whether their survival was now negotiable?”

By contrast, the reactions of both the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council were more muted; they argued that the proposed “two-tier” framework of pursuing a political agreement at Copenhagen with specific commitments to follow at a later summit is the most workable plan possible.

“Generally, it was the right call,” said EDF spokesman Tony Kreindler. “If we can walk out of this with a very well-situated political agreement, that’s actually quite helpful,” he said. “The important thing is to get a sound, sustainable agreement; whether that happens in 2009 or 2010 doesn’t make much difference.”

The NRDC had a similar take. “Every year of delay in taking action increases the costs of addressing global warming,” international climate policy director Jake Schmidt wrote on the NRDC blog. “But an extension — months, not years — could be worthwhile if countries use the time to firm up their commitments to reduce their global warming pollution and to finalize all the details of an international structure to ensure that those commitments are met.”

On Saturday, leaders gathered in what was described as a quickly arranged breakfast meeting at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Singapore to make the agreement, which would postpone any major binding agreement until a later date, perhaps to be signed at a meeting in Mexico City.

The geopolitical realities were stark. The Indians and the Chinese were not interested in agreeing to dramatic curbs on emissions that might slow their rate of rapid industrialization. And the United States did not come to the table with a strong hand — its own climate legislation is bogged down in Congress, making it difficult for U.S. diplomats to argue for global standards.

What’s more, with Obama poised to head to China this week, the United States had much more pressing economic matters on the table, including sensitive discussions surrounding Chinese currency and American deficit spending and interest rates.

The Chinese were not seen as likely to cave in on global climate control measures.

“They’ve said, ‘We believe in climate change, but we’re not going to sacrifice our development for anything,’” said Victor Cha of the Center for Strategic and International Studies and director for Asian affairs in the George W. Bush White House. “I don’t know what leverage the environmental community thought they had over that.”

The Obama administration conceded that reality.

“There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full, internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days,” Michael Froman, White House deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, told reporters traveling with the president.

Still, the decision was disappointing to environmental groups, which earlier in the year had hoped that December’s international conference in Copenhagen would be an opportunity to achieve a long-held goal of enacting global climate rules.

Asked about the disparity between Greenpeace and other groups, Media Director Mike Crocker said, “I can’t speak for the divide. Obviously, we all come at this from different perspectives, and the groups you mention are entitled to their views.”

Lou Leonard, director for U.S. policy on international climate affairs at the World Wildlife Fund, said the division reflects stylistic differences within the environmental movement. “Some groups like to say bombastic things, and that’s part of their shtick,” he said.